BREAKING: The Truth Behind Drop-in AR-15 Triggers. They Date Back to 1998.

Phil’s, Tom’s and my inbox have been blowing up with tips and emails from concerned gun owners worried about Mossberg’s lawsuits against 12 manufacturers of drop-in AR-15 trigger groups (read our post here and here catch up with the drama). We are only aware of 12 manufacturers being sued, but there could well be others being sued or who have already settled. The one company notable for not being sued is CMC Triggers. They have licensed the patent from Mossberg and are supportive of the lawsuit. CMC made a public statement here.

The lawsuit revolves around the patent US7162824B1. Michael McCormick applied for the patent in 2002. In 2011 ownership of the patent was transferred to Mossberg. The patent is titled “Modular trigger group for firearms and trigger group installation method”. The invention it describes is a self contained trigger group for a rifle (which has an upper and lower receiver) and has two pins holding the trigger in place … or in other words, a drop-in trigger group for a rifle that could only be an AR-15-type rifle.

A diagram from patent US7162824B1

Now what is really interesting: back in the late 1990s in Taiwan, a very innovate rifle was being developed without any fuss or fanfare. When it went into production the Taiwanese T86 (聯勤 Type 86) assault rifle was easily the most innovative AR-15 ever developed, featuring two major features: self contained piston gas system and a self-contained drop-in trigger group! The rifle was first shown to the public in 1996, its design was finalized in 1998 and it went into production into 2000.

Type 86 Carbine Version

Let that sink in for a moment. A full four years before Michael McCormick patented a drop-in trigger group for an AR-15-style rifle, an unknown genius in Taiwan had already developed one. A full two years before McCormick’s patent, this trigger group was in full production and being used by the Republic of China (ROC) Army.

Below is a diagram showing the T86 rifle components, note the trigger group:

Here is a another diagram of the T86:

What is really interesting is that the patent makes special mention of two sets of “hollow holes” on opposite sides of the receiver . This is central to the lawsuit. We call these the hammer pin and trigger pin holes. These pin holes are indicated in the XRay diagram below.

The point of drawing attention to these pins is because drop-in trigger groups have existed for half a century. For the invention to be new and novel requires a distinguishing feature. For example, the famous Dragunov SVD marksman rifle, developed in the early 1960s, had a drop-in trigger group, but with only one pin (the safety lever’s pin)

SVD Trigger Group (Thanks to Val for the photo)

Note how the SVD Trigger group is inserted into the rifle.

SVD Trigger Group being inserted and removed. Animation created with Gun DIsassembly 2.

Let us return to the T86 rifle. As far as I can tell, the T86 trigger does APPEAR notto use two pins to secure the trigger, it uses the safety pin and the lower receiver’s internal dimensions to hold it in place. It is a nicer system that the Stoner design, but **slightly** different from the patent.

I am trying to obtain high resolution photos of the T86 to be sure if they used pins or not, but the diagram below seems to indicate that it does not.

T86 Rifle

Therefore, the Mossberg is NOT a patent for a drop-in trigger group, it is patent simply for using two pins to secure a trigger group. That is it. Twelve companies are being sued for designing a drop-in trigger group that uses the existing pins on an AR-15. Not for designing drop-in trigger groups, but using two pins to secure it.

The story of this patent is not yet over. In late 2014 an unknown party requested that the US Trademark and Patent Office reexamine the patent. The reexamination invalidated one of the patent’s claims, but allowed Mossberg to add a number of additional claims/clarifications. Later in 2014 another request for reexamination was made (with seemingly no apparent changes to the patent). A few months ago in February another request for reexamination was made on the patent.

It will be very interesting to see how these lawsuits progress. Keep an eye on TFB, we will be reporting along the way.

READERS IN TAIWAN, JORDAN and UAE: TFB would love to get HIGH RESOLUTION photos of the T86 rifle and the T86 trigger group. If you are able to obtain photosplease email them to editor@thefirearmblog.com

(I know this is not relevant, but…) How about a pistol with a drop in FCG?

Lemdarel

Same with the TT33.

John Yossarian

And don’t most striker-fired pistols have a drop-in FCG – Glocks, M&P’s, etc.?

milesfortis

And one of the pins on the Glock is a pass-through that also serves as a pivot for a trigger group component.
If Mossberg doesn’t have Glock as a respondent, Glock may have them as a respondent, if Glock actually cared.

MemorableC

Glock really cared when airsoft companies where making handguns that looked like glocks, they shut most of them all down sot hey could offer a training pistol, that is LEO.

Aono

Time to discover whether all the white knighting for Mossberg’s patent trolling.. I mean the defense of the very IP system that undergirds capitalism itself.. will continue despite this obvious prior art.

Aono

Whoops, sorry for the markup mangling.

Vitor Roma

So you are an admirer of Kinsella views? You are not alone.

Aono

No, I’m not against patents per se and was being sarcastic about the undergirding of capitalism. I’m poking fun at the credulity and assumptions of good faith that was freely bestowed upon Mossberg prior to this “revelation” of prior art.

MichaelZWilliamson

It’s possible to support patents generally while disagreeing with this one.

Amaterasu_Junia

It will; even if Mossberg were to drop the suits. People would still defend them even if the patent was ruled invalid and removed.

frrst245

Damned right I will. Mossberg has done absolutely nothing wrong here, regardless of whether or not this patent stands up in court at the end of the day. They purchased the patent in good faith. They licensed out the IP in good faith, and now they are defending it in court. What did they do wrong?
The proper way to do business producing an item that is covered by a patent someone else owns is to pay royalties or proactively try to break the patent in court. These thieves did neither. Just because some gun nuts like these particular thieves does not make them less thieves.

Amaterasu_Junia

None of these companies are thieves here, since they’ve been using the patent long before Mossberg bought the it. Mossberg’s aim is simply to bank on the patent by collect royalties from them in exchange for continued use of the patent. The true issue here is that Mossberg bought a patent from a man who should’ve never been rewarded a patent bcause his application obviously failed to disclose prior art, which should therefore invalidate the patent entirely. The patent can also be invalidated simply by designing drop in triggers that use a different securing method other than the two pin method in the patent.

frrst245

It is easy to make the claim that the patent should never have been granted. From the sounds of it, it has survived a couple challenges, so maybe it is a valid patent. I don’t think Mossberg would have purchased it if they thought the patent was without merit.
Designing the drop in triggers with a different retention system would not invalidate the patent, that would be a work-around of the patent. It is a very simple solution, but they chose not to do that because the system protected by this patent has advantages in the market place.
I would personally choose to save $20 on a trigger if it meant I had to use screws vs. OEM pins to retain it, but the OEM pin method would be preferred. For me the threshold is about $10. That is the value I would place on the use of the IP protected by this patent in the market. You may put it at a different value, but I think most would say that a drop in being secured by the OEM pins does have some value vs. a more cumbersome retention system. Since Mossberg owns the idea that has some worth in the market place, they should be compensated by others that use the idea that Mossberg owns. I liken it to if somebody takes my bicycle in the middle of the night, uses it and returns it before I wake up, they are still thieves. They are using my property without my permission. Had they set up an agreement with me to rent the bike before hand, they would not be thieves.

Amaterasu_Junia

The patent hasn’t actually been fought in court. All that’s happened is that it’s been reviewed a couple of times to find just exactly what the patent entails, which is where the realization that the patent only applies to the two pin system came from. It’s never been reviewed for validaty because, though, and the discovery of prior art, even foreign, may be enough to invalidate the patent if any of the defendants brings it up in court. Even if it doesn’t, simply recreating the prior art is enough to produce a superior product, since form fitting the FCG to the lower reciever and using a pre-existing body pin is more stable, solider and the pin is far less likely to walk out, that doesn’t violate the patent. Or even better; the discover that Mossberg’s patent only covers a specific style of drop in trigger means others can create their own styles of drop-ins without breaking the patent. None of this would’ve come to light had Mossberg done the gentlemanly thing and negotiated with these companies rather than immediately filing a cease-and-desist order and suing them. These heavy handed tactics may cost them. As for your example; it doesn’t really apply very well here because it fails to include that you knew the bike was being used as a sort of community bike and that you didn’t communicate with the community that anyone one that wanted to keep using it after you bought needed to talk to you about it. Instead, you bought the bike, banned everyone from using it and then called the cops on them since they used it in the past and are now using the cops as a weapon when you tell them they have to pay you to use the bike. Doesn’t sound like someone that should be supported when you look at it that way, huh?

Vitor Roma

LOL @ people who believe that the patent office does any effort to figure out what is innovation and what is pure patent trolling. They love to grant patents left and right so they can brag about helping such “innovating” companies.

Cymond

I actually know a guy who works for the patent office as an examiner. We haven’t talked about his work very much, but I get the sense that it is challenging to interpret the (sometimes vague) language of the applications.

Fwiw, he’s an honest, hardworking, decent fellow. Of course, that’s anecdotal. The patent office may still have institutional problems.

allannon

I don’t think RoC designs count as prior art. I am not a lawyer and all that, but my understanding is that absent specific agreements–to which I doubt the RoC is a signatory–prior art only matters if the source is in the US.

Which if correct is pretty messed up, but that’s the patent system for you.

mzungu

Prior art is anything anywhere…think about it, the wheel is no invented in the US, but is valid prior art.

George

Prior art anywhere on Earth matters… Especially post-internet.

You are supposed to be familiar with the field.

Similar drop in assemblies in a pwer drill might not count, but in firearms do regardless of origin. Pin in hollow pin and Bob’s your Uncle.

Vitor Roma

The novelty of using pins to pin things into place.

RocketScientist

Its the novelty of using a pin in the receiver that inserts through a hollow pin in the trigger pack assembly. It this pin-inside-a-hollow-pin trick that is the critical part of their patent. Not merely using a pin.

iksnilol

Pinception?

parabellum

Pintercourse.

Schnee

Having dealt with some issue like this in my professional life, here’s my guess about who is going to have what reaction as they read this article:

1) defendants will read this and call their attorneys to ask what happens now

2) defendants attorneys are willing to file to invalidate McCormick’s patent because of prior art, but they’ll probably wait because Mossberg is going to drop the suit.

3) mossberg execs will show up and then call their lawyers to ask the following:

4) do we still have basis for a suit? The Mossberg attorneys will consider whether something built in Taiwan, not patented in the US, should have constituted prior art. It probably did.

4.1) when the Mossberg execs ask their attorneys whether they should proceed with the suit, the attorneys will say, “well, it’s lower likelihood now that you’ll succeed, but it’s your money.” Someone sane at Mossberg will realize that the only ones who make money from this are the attorneys, and they are damaging their brand by being dicks.

5) Someone who is sane but cranky at Mossberg will ask the attorneys whether they can go back and seek damages from McCormick or his attorneys for failing to find prior art in their original filing. The Mossberg lawyer will say it’s a long shot, they acted in good faith, and unless you want to spend a sh**-ton of money deposing everyone and getting a favorable venue, you probably need to chalk this one up to karma and walk away.

6) I have been leaning toward getting a Mossberg 930 JM instead of a Benelli because I like gas operation. I’m a little less inclined to buy one now because these guys are jerks. I’ll hang onto my WW2 Mossberg .22 bolt rifle and my ex-PD 500A. Many potential Mossberg customers will be marginally less inclined to purchase a new Mossberg.

7) Mossberg guys will have to endure dumb comments for three years at the SHOT show.

8) They can commiserate over beers with the Smith guys at SHOT. They tried a similarly counterproductive thing with Sigma, er, M&P aftermarket folks.

9) That Christian dude doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of recovering the licensing fee he has righteously paid to Mossberg lo these many years. But it’d be un-Christian to sue Mossberg anyway.

10) McCormick continues to eat cottage cheese off the chests of $5000 per night hookers while he sips champagne.

Moral of the story: caveat emptor, and the only ones who win are the lawyers.

raz-0

Well, I will say

6) Don’t get the 930 jm. Get a stoeger m3k if looking for something priced right. I’m having a hell of a time keeping my 930 running for 3 gun, and the aftermarket has spoken a while ago and dropped serious support for it a while ago. Talking to people who RO a lot of 3 gun, I’m not the only one.

9) McCormick probably isn’t paying anything. They probably get licensing for free as part of the terms of selling off the IP to mossberg in the first place. Why they sold it off is likely something related to the 8-9 recall notices I have for the first generation trigger packs.

Between this and the mossberg name being associated with smart guns, mossberg should probably consider offering a quiet settlement for like $2 a unit and move on.

I’ll Second the recommendation for the m3000, got one for my brother 2 years ago and he has had only one failure to fire in 2 years of duck hunting and it was from a bad primer.

Icer

I had about 5 failures to eject, and a couple failures to fire, within the first 200 rounds, but that may be due to factory gunk. Still enjoy that gun.

Will probably sell it and go full M2.

Gunner4guy

I got the Stoeger as a ‘Winter Solstice’ present – love it! Only time I had a FtF was with some old paper-hulled ‘Express” shells my dad had(& which I should have just kept as display items….) back in the early 1950’s. You won’t be sorry with it or a Benelli.

somethingclever

It’s only unchristian to sue other christians, and that’s only unchristian because you’re demonstrating that you don’t know how to work out your problems when you have shared values.

#4, The Tai gun was not available in the US, so I would suspect it might not actually be considered prior art to invalidate a US patent.

#9 I suspect the whole reason this happened is because “That Christian guy” told Mossberg “If they aren’t paying, why should I?” Either way, CMC will not be hamstrung by paying fees their competitors don’t. They did nothing wrong and will be in a better business position going forward no matter how the cards fall. Lets hear it for Christianity!

Twilight sparkle

I found plenty of t91 pictures which is based on the t86 and it looks like it only has pinholes for the trigger and full auto sear.

PK

Two pins to secure a self contained, boxed trigger group into a rifle… like a 10/22?

jamezb

…or a Garand/M1/M14/Mini14..the self-contained trigger group / housing is arguably a “lower”..

raz-0

That rifle does not have an upper and lower receiver.

PK

T86 photo, left side… two pins.

J.T.

I wouldn’t trust it completely. The probably re-used parts from other airsoft guns to make it.

Sebastian Shen

This is absolutely 100% airsoft.

Jwedel1231

If a judge will say that using 2 pins to hold in a housing is novel, when the parts it replaced were held in by the same pins and the thing being held in was previously existing, then Mossberg will win. I personally think this is bullshit, but I’m not a judge, nor a patent attorney, nor a patent holder so my opinion means absolutely nothing.

RocketScientist

The critical part isn’t using a pin (or 2 pins). The critical part is using the pin-within-a-hollow-pin at each of the two pin locations. the trick McCormick invented to make his assemblies a neat drop-in to existing AR lowers, utilizing their existing press-fit pin holes to interface with hollow pivot pins on the drop-in assembly. I don’t know enough about these things to know if anyone had done this previously (presumably not, or the PTO wouldn;t have approved it), but if they had, these court actions are a perfect opportunity to demonstrate that and rule the patent invalid.

Fred O C Cubed

If thats the case the JP EZ-Trigger needs to be added to the list and it is far from a Drop-In. Even more interesting is that JP gave up on their trigger module but kept the pin configuration.

Also, the notion that all of this is based on “pin-within-a-hollow-pin at each of the two pin locations” would apply to Anti-Walk Pins as well…

Gorilla Biscuit

So lemme see if I got this straight, Michael McCormick jacked the idea from some guy in Taiwan. Got a patent here , sold the patent to Mossberg. Mossberg is now trying to cash in suing every one? And something about two pins holding it in the rifle. Right?

Mike Burns

Read the independent claims more closely. It’s not just using pins – it’s the pass-through pins that also serve as pivots for at least one trigger group component that are the invention.

Gregory Markle

So you ship your drop in trigger group with a hollow pass through sleeve with a pin through that (there are various methods to secure such a mess) and then, bam, you have a sleeve through a sleeve with a pin which is unique. Document it and refuse to patent it, allowing it for open usage. Whether the end user resorts to using the multi pin kludge, regular pins, or a KNS style pin isn’t your problem at that point.

I like the CMC ones Mike; especially the new ones that use two small screws instead of those pesky clips which are easily lost.

Jerry_In_Detroit

The Stg-41 M also had a drop in trigger group secured by one pin.

John

M1 Garand has a trigger pack, and some shotgun trigger groups are held in by pins.

bull

so… just replace the pins with screws?

John Yossarian

And not just the Dragunov, but the SKS and SVT as well:

A.WChuck

I’ve got no dog in the hunt, but may ask some questions?
Ruger takes heat for copying Keltec designs that were no longer protected much like the drop in trigger pack manufactures copied the usage of the 2 pins, except that the drop-ins are still (rightly or wrongly) protected. Why the heat for Ruger and not for the drop-in manufactures?
Colt, Remington, Browning, et al have protected their patents in the past. Quite forcefully. Was that wrong as well?

Cymond

My interpretation?
It’s the perceived difference between copying a general concept (and building something significantly different) and straight up cloning an entire design.

Also, I remember a podcast interview with a Ruger engineer about the LCP. He literally said “We started with a clean sheet of paper” when designing the LCP. I think the deliberate cloning, combined without the blatant lies, offended a lot of people.

Tritro29

TFB being communists…now I understand why I keep coming.

iksnilol

привет, товарищ

Бочка,басс,колбасер?

Tritro29

Hi, nope I’m not that kind of Russian. I’m more of a Lermontov guy myself…

iksnilol

Still, nobody says no to some good kolbasa.

:p

Ambassador Vader

Not very CHRISTIAN of them to be stealing designs. LOL

Billy Jack

They’re turning water (T86 drop-ins) into wine (2 pin T86 drop-ins)!

Ambassador Vader

Stoner be praised!

TDog

Ain’t that a kicker? Americans stealing technology from the Chinese!

Oh well… what’s good for the goose and all that… 😀

richard

Prior art is very confusing. I don’t understand how ARES were able to patent the SCR, when the black star BSR-15 was conceptually identical and predated it several years.

Nicholas Dunham

The T91 is based on the T86, and may or may not use the same trigger assembly. However, comparing this image to the one in the article above, it appears that the trigger pack is held in with three pins; the large hole is for the selector.

Zachary marrs

That 3rd pin is the auto sear

All select fire ar’s have that 3rd pin

Nicholas Dunham

Excellent point. I should have realized that.

However, I’ve been looking through the patent, and noticed a few thing in particular. The claim pertains to using either or both pins to retain the housing – therefore, it matters not whether the T86 has one or two. However, it should be noted that the claim is very specifically for an aftermarket trigger assembly that replaces a non-drop-in FCG. In the background, it is also noted that “Prior art OEM trigger group housings also house safety components that cooperate with the trigger group components. These structures and surfaces associated with the prior art OEM trigger group housings limit their use to firearms specifically designed for such housings.”

Jim Torres

So what about the drop in trigger packs used by HK weapons and the SIG p210 pistol.

nicholsda

Or Sig P250 where the whole trigger assembly moves from caliber to caliber and frame to frame.

Steve Truffer

AK74’s have the pin-in-pin setup, and retaining plates to hold the whole shebang in place.
Prior art since at least 1974.

HollowTs

These examples are not “enclosed”.

Uncle Festet

Your theories are exactly why countries with poor patent systems are stuck in the strong age.

Matt Wilder

“Ideas need to breed, not lawyers.”
See, I took your previous idea, expanded on it, and now we have an awesome bumper sticker!

Now comes the part where you sue me for plagiarism, and using artistic license to modify your original statement both “unjustly and without compensation”….

Southpaw89

First off, nice article, its good to get some background on this and I hope the case will be followed in a similar manner. Second off, I now need to find the furniture and hardware to make this rifle as an AR.

LetsTryLibertyAgain

Thank you Steve! This is some top notch journalism, conveying a great deal of very useful information. If only the USPTO had been as diligent in their prior art research before awarding a patent for such a trivial innovation (IMO).

LetsTryLibertyAgain

If I was going to sell a drop-in trigger for an AR, I’d have done a quick patent search, found this lame patent (lame, because it harms innovation rather than encouraging it), changed my two pins to sex bolts (an internally threaded pin and a screw) to avoid any infringement, and then marketed it as being more secure than pins that can walk out.

Now it’s time to search GunBroker to see if I can buy one of those sweet Taiwanese T86 rifles. 🙂

HollowTs

Well there was Tesla! I’m just saying…

uisconfruzed

Mossberg is dead to me.

Anthony “stalker6recon”

I am not sure why this is a problem, seems similar to seeing wheel makers for using the lug nuts to hold the wheel on a car, stupid.

On another note, with all the obvious gains that gas/piston operation has over gas only systems (when done right), I can’t fathom why colt hasn’t modified the M4 and M16 as the primary rifles that the military carries. Don’t get me wrong, I loved my M4 while in the Army, and most of the double feeds were related to damaged followers or worn out springs. We were issued brand new magazines before deployment, and the issue was almost completely resolved in a maintained rifle. But the cleaning of the rifle would be much easier, if fouling of the chamber was no longer part of the function of the rifles. Especially the “star chamber”. I got as many used dental picks as I could, and shared then with my platoon, they are invaluable in cleaning.

We did change from the old dump in CLP until the rifle is dripping method, to the whale spend lubricant, which also helped. And I enjoyed the M16A4 I had during OSUT, but was happy to carry the M4 once I joined my unit. At that time, the M4 was not the primary rifle in use, and only certain MOS’s were fortunate to carry them.

Anyway, seems mossberg is being a little bit silly over this issue, I hope they lose, big time.

Harry’s Holsters

The attorney’s are going to make a fortune off this.

Justy

The SVT-40 already had a drop-in trigger assembly, almost thirty years before the SVD.

Scott

lol hate to break it to them all, but i built something like this in the early 90’s. At the time i was at Camp Robinson, Ar…working in the “Vault”. lol was e4 army national guard and anything i built,designed, or is still sitting in a parts bin…. belong to Arkansas Army National Guard. Oh it was mounted on a belt fed m16.

Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

Maybe Mossburg needs to find out the hardway about boycotts.

Jeff Webley

I invented the ar15 modular trigger group utilizing a housing, sleeves, and pins to secure in place back in 1992 when I couldn’t find a decent (meaning good pull, over travel, and take-up) trigger for my Olympic Arms ar15. Problem here though is I didn’t patent it, cause I was young and broke. Imagine my suprise when I saw the McCormick drop in trigger 10 years later. (sigh). Oh well….

MichaelZWilliamson

And why should anyone invest money (not free) in a development if they’re not going to get “free” money (actually not free) from licensing the development for a period of time?

disqus_XlYouOiadt

Would the 1918 BAR trigger and sear assembly have a place in this argument?

Krummholzt

A couple of points.

First, the broadest claims of the ‘385 patent don’t even require two pins. Claims 1 and 5, only require a single pin.

Second, even if the T86 (or T91) had the claimed structure, a foreign device is not prior art. It must have been sold in the U.S., or there must be a printed publication that shows the structure.

Jerome Lin

Taiwan Patent No. 409847 shows the structure and is a printed publication.

Krummholzt

That would be good news. Hooray for crowd sourced prior art searching.

Shocked_and_Amazed✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

I don’t consider getting paid for your invention/ idea dumb. I consider it fair and reasonable

MemorableC

20 years exclusivity is a long time to shut down a developing market because someone wanted to patent through pins used in a trigger, or rounded corners on a phone.

frrst245

If Mossberg’s McCormick patent gets invalidated, CMC still wins because they will no longer pay Mossberg royalties.

“Therefore, the Mossberg is NOT a patent for a drop-in trigger group, it is patent simply for using two pins to secure a trigger group. That is it.”

Then technically, that would be every AR trigger that exists…milspec and all.

Disgusted Citizen

This will not end well for Mossberg. Years of very expensive litigation with little chance of a return worth the time and effort.

CavScout

I’d consider the Mossberg trigger to be a ‘drop in’ style pack. Funny you didn’t mention how long Mossberg has been making drop in triggers. Longer than the others you listed I think…

Kivaari

That SVD trigger group reminds me of the SKS (CKC 45).

Scott B

Sorry, but what the Taiwanese or the Russians did years ago is going to mean exactly diddly squat in U.S. patent court……

Isaac Newton

For the IP buffs: there seems to be ways around the patent

Avoid using pins to secure the module (e.g. 4 detents built into the module housing)

Avoid having to separate the upper from the firearm (e.g. pivot upper on front take down pin)

John

Better get your Franklin Armory Binary Firing Systems now while you still can!

zardoz711

Why use an SVD for comparison and not an SKS?
It has a self contained fcg held together with pins (yet retained in the rifle in a different matter).

Or batter yet a Browning Auto5/Remington 11 or Mossberg 500?
All self contained fcg’s held in with pins through the receiver.

Jim Taylor

I think your looking at it wrong. The Patent Holder should have the right to sell his technology to whomever wants and should not be penalized for this. Imagine this was your patent you worked so hard for and you Finally found a buyer.

Paul Sancheski

Patents! What if manufacturers had no monopoly patent protection on anything, but instead relied on reputation, quality and branding?

Sebastian Shen

The Taiwanese MOD didn’t issue this carbine, these only can be seen in the old propaganda picture in the early 2000. However, the T86 carbines were sent to Jordan as a diplomatic present for their elite force. Base on the reason above, I believe there are more T86 in Jordan than we have lol.

fleetwrench

The Remington 870 has being using two solid pins through two hollow pins. With a notch in the solid pin retained the pin with a wire spring. Sound familiar ?. To secure the trigger group since 1951. Maybe old chip being a 1911 guy never took a good look at a scatter gun before filing his patent.

nicholsda

Or the M1 Carbine where the whole trigger assembly slides on lugs on the rear and is pinned at the front.